19 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Section 437(6) CrPC/Section 480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn’t Concluded in 60 days: Supreme Court

Case- Sushil Sahu vs. State of Chattisgarh

Date of Order- February 16, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court stated that courts should adopt a liberal approach when dealing with Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) applications, especially in cases where there is no possibility of evidence tampering, absconding, or the accused delaying the trial.

Section 437(6) CrPC: This section generally grants bail if a trial before a Magistrate isn't concluded within 60 days from the first date set for prosecution evidence, unless the Magistrate records reasons otherwise. Section 480(6) in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is the counterpart to Section 437(6) of the CrPC.

Observations by the Bench (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan):

• If there are no factors against the accused that suggest a possibility of prejudice to the prosecution, or the accused being responsible for the trial delay, Section 437(6) applications should be dealt with liberally to protect individual liberty under the Constitution.
• The provision aims to expedite the trial process, recognizing the right to a speedy trial to protect individual liberty.
• The provision is not mandatory but also doesn't grant an absolute right to bail.
• Factors relevant for rejecting regular bail at the initial stage are also relevant for rejecting applications under sub-section (6) of the said Section.

Factors Relevant to Decide Applications Under S.437 (6):

1. Are the reasons for not concluding the trial within 60 days from the first date of evidence attributable to the accused?
2. Are there chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the prosecution's case?
3. Are there chances of the accused absconding if bailed out?
4. Was the accused in custody during the whole period?

If any of these questions are answered positively, it would restrict the accused's right under the provision. Other factors to consider include the offense, trial timeline, evidence volume, number of witnesses, court workload, and the number of accused being tried with the accused.

Liberal Approach:

The Court stated that a liberal approach should be taken on applications under Section 437(6), especially where there is no chance of evidence tampering, the accused isn't at fault for the delay, there are no chances of absconding, there is little scope for concluding the trial soon, and the accused has been in jail for a substantial period compared to the sentence for the offense. Normal bail application parameters are relevant but not as strict as at the time of regular bail application.

Case Details: The court was hearing an appeal from a High Court ruling that denied regular bail to an appellant for criminal offenses, including cheating related to cryptocurrency, an economic offense. Only one witness had been examined out of 189, and the accused had been in custody since December 2023. The maximum punishment that can be imposed is seven years since the trial is being conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Final Order: The Court allowed the appeal, ordering the accused's release subject to the Trial Court's conditions. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 35 lakh within six months, considering that the alleged scam amounts to Rs. 4 Crore, but only about Rs. 35 lakh is attributable to him; failure to deposit the amount would result in automatic cancellation of the bail.

2. Section 34 IPC | Mere Presence at Crime Scene as Spectator Doesn/t Establish Common Intention Unless Active Participation Proven: Supreme Court

Case- Girish Akbarasab Sanavale & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka

Date of Order- February 11, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a husband accused of participating with his mother in setting his wife ablaze, emphasizing that mere presence at the crime scene isn't enough to establish common intention without proof of active participation.

Case Background:

• The appellant, a husband, was convicted by the Karnataka High Court for the murder of his wife.
• He was alleged to have actively participated in the crime with his mother, who was accused of setting the wife on fire.

Charges:

The husband was charged under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with joint liability for a criminal act done by multiple individuals with a common intention.

Supreme Court's Ruling:

• The Supreme Court observed that mere presence at the crime scene does not establish common intention unless active participation is proven.
• The Court explained that in order for someone to be guilty under Section 34, they must actively participate in the crime, either through a specific act or omission that shows they shared the common intention.
• The husband was merely present at the scene and poured water on his wife to extinguish the flames, which contradicted the prosecution's claim that he participated in setting her on fire.
• The prosecution failed to provide direct evidence of his active participation or proof of common intention with his mother.
• The Court emphasized that without overt participation and a shared common intention, the husband could not be held guilty under Section 34.

Court's Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's conviction of the husband and acquitted him, as the prosecution had not proven his active participation in the crime.
• The Court upheld the conviction of the mother-in-law, as she was found to have been involved in the crime.
• The Court clarified the distinction between Section 34 (joint liability) and Section 149 (unlawful assembly), highlighting the importance of individual participation and common intention for Section 34 to apply.

Legal Principle:

• Section 34 requires participation in the crime and a pre-arranged plan with a shared common intention among the offenders.

If common intention is proven but no overt act is attributed to an accused, Section 34 applies. However, if participation is proved without common intention, Section 34 cannot be invoked.

3. Supreme Courts Directs States to Consider Premature Release of Convicts When They Become Eligible Even Without Their Applications

Case- In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Bail

Date of Order- February 18, 2025

Bench- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

The Supreme Court issued significant directives regarding the government's power to remit sentences for convicts under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Key Findings and Directives:

Power to Grant Remission:

The Court ruled that the power to grant remission can be exercised without requiring an application from the convict or anyone on their behalf.

If a state government or union territory has adopted a policy for permanent remission, it is obligated to consider all eligible convicts for remission according to that policy.

Obligation to Formulate Policies:

States and union territories without an exhaustive remission policy must create one within two months. This policy can be separate or included in prison manuals.

Conditions for Remission:

Conditions imposed during remission must be reasonable, capable of being complied with, and not vague or oppressive.

The nature of the crime and public safety must be considered when determining these conditions.

Revocation of Remission:

The appropriate government can cancel remission only if there is a breach of terms and conditions.

If cancellation occurs, the convict must undergo the remaining sentence, and brief reasons for cancellation must be recorded.

The convict should receive a show-cause notice and an opportunity to respond before cancellation.

Recording Reasons:

The Court emphasized that reasons must be recorded for both granting and rejecting remission requests.

These reasons should be communicated promptly to the convict through prison authorities. 

Implementation of Directives:

The District Legal Services Authorities are tasked with ensuring the implementation of these directives and maintaining relevant data on convicts eligible for premature release.

Natural Justice:

The principles of natural justice must be integrated into the provisions concerning remission, ensuring fairness in how these powers are exercised.

These directives aim to ensure that the process surrounding remission is fair, transparent, and respects the rights of convicts under the Constitution.